Taking arms out of Gov-Letter on new regs.
pirate | 19.04.2006 15:30 | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | London | South Coast
Reply (at long last) to campaign letter started by Campaign Against the Arms Trade way back last September.
Copy of email and letter sent on to CAAT today.
Having pressed my MP, a certain Michael Howard to push for a reply on the "take the arms companies out of government" campaign.(After the Chan' of the Duchy of Lanc post was not re-filled). He has just received the following from the Comm on Standards in Public Life. (MH's initiatal reply- whilst still Tory leader last Sept (27th) was merely a restatement of the guidelines- His covering letter with the following reply merely re-iterates several points of the letters points only.... He is of course retiring at the next election, so I suspect may well be looking to have fingers in 'military pies' amongst others.... )
(Following 'clear as mud' really....)
Committee on Standards in Public Life, 35 Gt Smith St, London SW1P 3BQ.
11 April 06. (To:Michael Howard MP.)
Dear Micheal.
Thank you for your letter of 13 March 2006. Although Rob Behrens sent you a holding reply on 16 March I can now set out the core concerns which the Committee have expressed about Sir Patrick Brown's review of the Business Appointment Rules.
First, no evidence has been brought forward that the existing criteria used to judge the appropriateness of business appointments are inadequate or wrongly applied. Secondly, the proposed new, single test set out by Sir patrick to set against proposed moves by officials from the public to the private sector is unacceptably narrow and significantly less stringent than the existing tests. It is likely to be inadequate either to resolve genuine conflicts of interests or to reassure the public that there is no risk of impropriety.
Thirdly, Sir Patrick's proposed new single sanction for a democractic conflict of interests- an individual being barred from joining the prospective employer for 2 years unless there is an overriding national interest argument - is too inflexible to deal with the wide variety of circumstances currently being dealt with by the Advisory Committee. In our view the outcome would be either a disproportionate sanction or the withholding of the sanction where one is currently applied.
Finally, the Committee strongly supports the principal of independent investigation set out by Sir Patrick but the implications of the transfer of this function to the Civil Service Commissioners require more careful thought than has currently been given. Of course, Sir Patrick was not asked to review the arrangements which apply to former ministers, but the transfer of the oversight of officials to the Commissioners makes the Advisory Committee on Business Apponiments unsustainable as a regulator of the business activity of former ministers alone.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely. Alistair Graham.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ends.
Having pressed my MP, a certain Michael Howard to push for a reply on the "take the arms companies out of government" campaign.(After the Chan' of the Duchy of Lanc post was not re-filled). He has just received the following from the Comm on Standards in Public Life. (MH's initiatal reply- whilst still Tory leader last Sept (27th) was merely a restatement of the guidelines- His covering letter with the following reply merely re-iterates several points of the letters points only.... He is of course retiring at the next election, so I suspect may well be looking to have fingers in 'military pies' amongst others.... )
(Following 'clear as mud' really....)
Committee on Standards in Public Life, 35 Gt Smith St, London SW1P 3BQ.
11 April 06. (To:Michael Howard MP.)
Dear Micheal.
Thank you for your letter of 13 March 2006. Although Rob Behrens sent you a holding reply on 16 March I can now set out the core concerns which the Committee have expressed about Sir Patrick Brown's review of the Business Appointment Rules.
First, no evidence has been brought forward that the existing criteria used to judge the appropriateness of business appointments are inadequate or wrongly applied. Secondly, the proposed new, single test set out by Sir patrick to set against proposed moves by officials from the public to the private sector is unacceptably narrow and significantly less stringent than the existing tests. It is likely to be inadequate either to resolve genuine conflicts of interests or to reassure the public that there is no risk of impropriety.
Thirdly, Sir Patrick's proposed new single sanction for a democractic conflict of interests- an individual being barred from joining the prospective employer for 2 years unless there is an overriding national interest argument - is too inflexible to deal with the wide variety of circumstances currently being dealt with by the Advisory Committee. In our view the outcome would be either a disproportionate sanction or the withholding of the sanction where one is currently applied.
Finally, the Committee strongly supports the principal of independent investigation set out by Sir Patrick but the implications of the transfer of this function to the Civil Service Commissioners require more careful thought than has currently been given. Of course, Sir Patrick was not asked to review the arrangements which apply to former ministers, but the transfer of the oversight of officials to the Commissioners makes the Advisory Committee on Business Apponiments unsustainable as a regulator of the business activity of former ministers alone.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely. Alistair Graham.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ends.
pirate